Tag Archives: US Constitution

A Different Kind of Nation

Posted on by

The United States Constitution holds a unique place in the history of the world. The framers devised a new model for governance in 1787, conceived with a vision that has endured for more than two hundred years.

Are we willing to overlook the subsequent missteps and mistakes, the rude and selfish behavior, to consider what is truly of value to us? Are we prepared to step forward to reconstruct and defend what we wish to preserve?

If we let this inheritance die, what will we have lost?

The record has not always been pretty, but how could we expect anything like perfection when we have gathered the human race together from across the world into the managed chaos of a democratic republic?

We are blessed with a brilliantly conceived structure for governance that has channeled the creative genius of the world’s people into a dynamic force for capacity-building and prosperity.

As I tried to illustrate in the previous post, the framers made a studied effort to see the end in the beginning. We now stand at another profound turning point in history, a moment that will require a similar visionary maturity from Americans of all colors, stripes, and viewpoints.

There are those who think 200 years is a reasonable age for a democratic republic to reach its’ natural demise. However, the United States of America is not just any democratic republic. And, I have yet to hear the voices of failure suggest an ultimate outcome.

I think it more reasonable to understand 200 years as the age of maturity, influenced in part by the affairs of the world, when this nation must necessarily come of age.

We have responsibility for a trust that is grounded in the heritage of the American idea. It is the responsibility to provide an immensely complex and now faltering world with the stability required to support the next surge forward by the human race.

This is a trust that no other nation has the vision, the strength of will or generosity of spirit, to embrace. Brought into focus by the vision of the American founders, it shines even now from the darkness, confident amid danger and hardship.

Imperfections remain. Those who point to the evils and injustices of the past are serving a necessary role. We must not forget what was ignoble or wrongly conceived. It is not helpful, however, to condemn the vision and good will that give character to what the world has admired.

Questions remain. Thoughtful citizens will consider the requirements that freedom makes in the way we handle our civil discourse, our disagreements and decision-making. Surely there can be no freedom for thought, for creativity, for economic advancement in the absence of a civil society that provides the space to engage freely and without fear.

Recognizing the necessity for the stable social order upon which all else depends, a practical reality confronts each of us every day. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Have we matured to the degree that we can listen compassionately to one another, explain our own views patiently, and, when necessary, live with our differences?

Do we have the capacity to approach freedom of expression responsibly, to work with one another respectfully? The crises-fueled tensions of the early 21st century leave us wondering.

Ultimately, freedom and prosperity depend upon our ability to engage in meaningful problem-solving, and to accept our differences within the supporting constraints of commonly held principles.

Why should we do this?

Because we are all Americans, that’s why.

Because we can resolve to regain our footing and get ourselves moving again in the right direction.  And, because if we fail we could lose everything.

Tom

Next week: American Identity, American Heritage

The Second Amendment, Then and Now

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten of the amendments to the Constitution, was first proposed to Congress by James Madison as articles to be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution.

Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution in 1789 and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison’s proposal, they were submitted as “supplemental” additions. Articles Three through Twelve were ratified by the required number of states and became Amendments One through Ten in 1791.

The Second Amendment, which has become a matter of considerable interest in recent years, reads as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This was not controversial at the time. The concept existed in English common law long before the enactment of the Bill of Rights. And for a variety of reasons today many Americans feel it is necessary to own firearms.

The importance of this issue to the founders was quite clear. James Madison introduced the language that became the Second Amendment and also wrote: “The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Alexander Hamilton, like Madison a strong advocate for Federalism, was equally explicit: “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Thomas Jefferson famously said: “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” And he also wrote that “The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War there was mob violence in several of the colonies. In addition, many American lived in or close to wilderness regions where conditions were essentially lawless. The need people felt to protect their families was quite rational.

It should be noted that a primary motivation for supporting “a well regulated Militia,” articulated in the Second Amendment as “being necessary to the security of a free State,” was the strong opposition among the founders to the concept of a standing army.

Thomas Jefferson put it this way: “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

The American reality in 1776 and 1791 was entirely different from that confronting us today. Yet, news of social, religious, and psychopathic violence imposes itself on us every day. Older Americans are particularly sensitized to what has changed: the radical loss of trust and the lack of civility, ethical integrity, and social responsibility we see everywhere.

We must acknowledge the compelling reasons why so many feel it necessary to own firearms.

That said, however, I must tell you I believe the use of force among Americans today, in defense of the Constitution and the American freedoms, would be counterproductive and incompatible with an effective strategy.

Our consideration in recent posts of the dynamic relation of means to ends should, in my view, make this clear.

Violence committed by Americans against Americans would contradict the rationale behind the impetus to violence itself. It would be self-contradictory, pitting brother and sister against brother and sister, subverting the integrity and viability of the American Idea as a guiding force for the good.

We can do far better.

I have presented principles supporting this assertion in previous posts, (see especially Nov 28 and Dec 12), and will offer a more explicit argument next week.

We need to consider this carefully and get it right. We face a long crisis. Many dark and dangerous things are possible.

Tom

Next week: Principled Means, Principled Ends

Note to readers: You can support this blog and the book project by suggesting that your friends and associates take a look.